Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer having been certified by the Commission on August 5, 1983 and issued certificate number 43-86-017-01. Respondent had previously been certified as a law enforcement officer by the Commission in December 1974 but that certificate expired while Respondent was attending college. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a deputy sheriff by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. However, Respondent began his employment as a law enforcement officer in 1974 when he worked for the Windermere Police Department in Orange County, Florida, and since July 1990 has worked part-time for the Davenport Police Department. Respondent has been employed full-time as a financial consultant with Merrill Lynch since February 1990. Respondent is licensed in Florida under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes to conduct securities transaction and licensed under Chapter 626, Florida Statutes to conduct business in annuities, life insurance and health insurance. Licensure under both Chapter 517, Florida Statutes and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, requires, among other requirements, that the licensee be of good moral character. On September 29, 1989, Respondent was on duty as an Osceola County Sheriff's Department deputy assigned to the southwest portion of Osceola County. At approximately 1800 hours, Respondent was dispatched to a residence in the community of Poinciana to talk to the parents of two minor females (ages fourteen and sixteen) who were allegedly provided alcoholic beverages by three adult males earlier in the day. The juveniles, who had skipped school, advised Respondent that the three males had taken them to a lake and allowed them to drink beer and go swimming. The three males involved were pointed out to Respondent, who then went to the males and questioned them. During this questioning, a "field contact card" was completed on each male. The time of completion of the cards is indicated on the cards to be 1830 hours (6:30 p.m.). By reason of the completion of the cards, Respondent identified the names of the three males (Robert Miller, William Troy, and Clayton Daniel Worley), their ages (27, 26, and 19 years, respectively), their addresses, phone numbers, physical descriptions, social security numbers, and, for Miller and Worley, drivers license numbers. Worley was identified as owner of the red pickup truck on the scene. After completing the contact cards, Respondent returned to the victims. One victim, J.B., age 14, reported that while she was in the water, Robert Miller started feeling her breasts and that Clayton Worley also grabbed her and started fondling her breasts. According to J.B., she told Miller and Worley to leave her alone, and she went ashore. J.B. then related that William Troy then asked her to go for a walk and that during the walk, Troy grabbed J.B. and tried to kiss her, than pulled his penis from his pants and forced her hand into it. J.B. indicated she pulled away but Troy grabbed her again and tried to force her to touch his penis. J.B. indicated Troy repeatedly asked her to perform various sex acts and she refused. According to J.B., the three males agreed to take the girls home and, when the truck stopped at an intersection, J.B. jumped from the truck and sought help. By the time Respondent learned of the breast fondling and penis exposure allegations, the males had left the scene. Respondent contacted his supervisor then-Sergeant Robert Hansell who talked with him about probable cause to arrest the three suspects. Hansell further contacted the on-call investigator Detective Andy Strecker who agreed with Hansell that there was probable cause to effect arrests for lewd and lascivious acts committed in the presence of a minor. Strecker contacted Respondent by phone, instructed him to send the parents and juveniles to the Sheriff's Office for sworn taped statements and to effect the arrest of all three suspects, if possible, on the felony charge of lewd and lascivious acts. Neither Hansell nor Strecker advised Respondent to charge sexual battery at that time, although Respondent still considered it a probable charge. After leaving the victim's home, Respondent attempted to locate the three males. During this attempt, he identified the red pickup truck and made a traffic (felony) stop of the vehicle at the intersection of San Remo Court and Deauville Court in Osceola County. Respondent recognized the driver as one of the three males who had been questioned by Respondent in conjunction with the "field contact cards" earlier, and knew the driver was not the vehicle owner, Clayton Worley. The traffic (felony) stop was indicated to the Osceola Sheriff dispatcher by Respondent at approximately 204658 (two seconds before 8:47 p.m.). Respondent exited his patrol car and ordered Miller to get out of the truck. When Miller reached the front of the patrol car Respondent ordered him to place his hands on the hood of the patrol car. As Miller placed his hands on the hood of the patrol car, Respondent stepped up behind Miller and advised him he was under arrest. At this time Respondent noticed a bulge in Miller's right rear pocket that was not there earlier when Respondent had asked for identification. Before Respondent could secure the handcuffs, Miller began acting belligerently by raising his hands and turning around and asking why he was being arrested. Respondent pushed Miller back onto the hood of the patrol car, advised him he was under arrest again, and told Miller to place his hands behind his back. Miller did not comply but spun around bumping into the Respondent. At this point, Respondent felt a hit against his weapon and a pull on his gunbelt causing Respondent to think that Miller was attempting to get his weapon. As a result, Respondent pushed Miller away and swung his gunside away from Miller. As Respondent recovered his balance, he turned toward Miller who was on his hands and feet in the roadway beside the driver's side of the patrol car. Respondent grabbed for Miller, but Miller jumped up and ran counter clockwise around the patrol car, west on San Remo Court to Deauville Court, a distance of about 35 feet. Respondent pursued Miller on foot as Miller turned south on Deauville Court. Other than Respondent's flashlight, the only light in the area was a street light at the southeast corner of San Remo Court and Deauville Court. As Respondent chased Miller away from the street light the area of the chase became less illuminated, and required Respondent to depend more on his flashlight. Since Respondent had failed to switch his flashlight from wide beam to narrow beam the flashlight did not provide sufficient light for Respondent to clearly observe Miller's actions during the chase. After the Respondent had chased Miller about 77 feet, Miller suddenly stopped about 30 feet from Respondent. Miller then turned toward Respondent with both hands somewhat extended and held close together in front of his body about waist level in what Respondent considered an offensive position. Miller made no effort to raise his hands as to give up. Since Miller had escaped before Respondent had been able to determine what the bulge was in his rear jeans pocket, Respondent believed that Miller had a weapon and was preparing to shoot him. Because they had moved away from the street light into a less illuminated area during the chase, the Respondent was unable to determine if Miller had a gun in his hands. Under the circumstances the Respondent feared for his life, and therefore, pulled his weapon, aimed and fired once. Miller then turned and ran south on Deauville Court again with Respondent pursuing him. Miller ran another 40 or 50 feet, suddenly stopped and pivoted toward Respondent, again holding his hands together low and in front of his body similar to that used to hold a handgun at low port. When Miller continued to hold his hands in an offensive position, the Respondent, again in fear for his life, fired three rounds. Apparently, Miller turned to run while Respondent was still shooting since Miller was hit in the lower right side of his back just above the hip through the Levi-Strauss patch on his jeans by one of the bullets. Although Respondent thought he had hit Miller, he began to have doubts that he had hit him when Miller started running again without staggering. Miller ran a short distance further south on Deauville Court before turning right (southwest) into an area of tall grass and ducked out of sight. Respondent followed Miller a short distance into a wooded area but retreated when he realized he might be shot from ambush because at this point Respondent still assumed that Miller was possibly armed. At approximately 8:49 p.m., Respondent requested a K-9 unit for searching the area. Respondent made this call for the K-9 unit from his hand- held radio while he was still near the area where Miller had entered the woods. This call was made approximately two minutes after Respondent indicated to the dispatcher that he was making the traffic (felony) stop. Upon returning to his patrol car, Respondent and Deputy Larry Dodson who had responded to Respondent's call for assistance removed Clayton Worley, the vehicle's owner, from the truck. Worley was unconscious from alcohol consumption but otherwise okay. Respondent explained to Dobson what had transpired and Dobson called Sergeant Hansell and secured the perimeter until the K-9 unit arrived. K-9 officer, Deputy Lisa Bowen arrived at approximately 9:07 p.m., and although not advised by Respondent that Miller might be armed and dangerous or that Respondent had fired shots at Miller, Bowen had heard the call for assistance and the shots-fired dispatch. Deputy Bowen proceeded to search the area in accordance with proper procedures, and eventually found Miller and placed him under arrest. Deputy Cutcher who had also responded to the call for assistance handcuffed Miller. Miller advised the deputies that he had been shot and could not move. Deputy Bowen found one bullet entry and requested paramedics and ambulance at approximate 9:48 p.m. Miller was identified from his wallet which had been taken from his pocket by Deputy Cutcher. When Sergeant Hansell, who had arrived on the scene, learned that Miller had been shot and was possibly armed, he directed the 9MM "spent" shell casings to be secured, that all law enforcement officers be advised that Miller may be armed, and directed Respondent to sit in his patrol car and not to discuss the incident with anyone. No firearm was found on Miller, and no firearm was found at the scene other than the service firearm secured from Respondent. Four 9MM "spent" casings from Respondent's service firearm were found at the scene. One "spent" 9MM casing was found in the area where Respondent first fired at Miller and three "spent" 9MM casings were found in the area where Respondent fired at Miller the second time. No other "spent" bullet casings were found at the scene. The shot that wounded Miller was fired by Respondent using his service firearm. Miller was admitted to Humana Hospital in Kissimmee at 11:15 p.m. where the bullet was surgically removed from the abdominal area by Dr. Antonio Ramirez. Miller's blood alcohol content was determined to be 0.18 percent. Evidence of Benzodiazepine (a class of tranquilizer which includes valium), cannabnoid, and cocaine metabohite were found by a urine drug screen. The arrest history for Miller indicates two arrests for resisting arrest; one dismissed and one with no disposition, and one charge of battery on a police officer which was dismissed. Subsequent to the night of the incident, Investigator Ryan, with the assistance of Deputy Bowen and Detective Webster, conducted an experiment at the scene to determine what the Respondent could have observed in regards to Miller's action under the same conditions as on the night of the incident. Notwithstanding the results of this experiment, the most credible evidence of what the Respondent may have seen or thought he saw during the chase of Miller was Respondent's testimony in this regard which is set out in the above Findings of Fact. While I understand Ryan's effort in this regard, none of those involved in the experiment had to make decisions on what they saw while chasing a person who had just escaped and who may possibly be armed. Respondent did not enjoy this luxury on the night of September 29, 1991 while chasing Miller who, Respondent had reason to believe, might be armed. Stewart R. Hudson, a special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated possible criminal charges against Respondent for aggravated assault concerning the shooting of Miller by Respondent on September 29, 1989. Hudson's investigative report, dated October 9, 1989, was submitted to the State Attorney's Office, Ninth Circuit, and to Sheriff Jon Lane. On November 7, 1989, the State Attorney's Office presented to the Grand Jury Hudson's investigative report. Agent Hudson, Sergeant Hansell and Major Magnaght testified before the Grand Jury regarding the shooting. The Grand Jury voted No True Bill, apparently finding the shooting to be justifiable use of force pursuant to Section 776.05, Florida Statutes. On October 11, 1989, an Osceola County Sheriff's Office Investigator interviewed Respondent regarding the shooting of Miller. Subsequently, the investigator asked Respondent to take polygraph examinations on October 19 and October 27, 1989. Each of the exams showed that Respondent was truthful regarding his fear for his life on September 29, 1989, and truthful in answering Sergeant Ryan on October 11, 1989. 2/ Nevertheless Sergeant Ryan indicated that Respondent was untruthful regarding whether Respondent struggled with Miller and whether Miller was facing him with his hands in a threatening manner when Andrews shot him. When Ryan told Respondent and impressed upon him he did not believe him after the polygraph examinations on October 19 and 27, 1989, Respondent changed his account of the two points which Ryan said showed deception and tried to comport his testimony with what he had been told the polygraph examinations showed. Respondent then requested to be polygraphed again on those questions to prove that he had been truthful in the interview of October 11, 1989, in his incident report and in his interview with Agent Hudson. Ryan indicated that he could not do another polygraph and reported that Respondent had given false information during the internal investigation with the intent to mislead the investigators. At the meeting when Respondent was dismissed on November 6, 1989, Andrews stood by his report and explained the changes in the October 27, 1989 interview with Sergeant Ryan. When he had finished, Commander Croft asked if Respondent was allowed or given the opportunity to be polygraphed after he changed his account of the shooting. Ryan indicated that they had already discussed this and told Respondent, "Don't go muddy up the water." Respondent's employment with the Osceola County Sheriff's Office was terminated November 6, 1989. Notwithstanding that Respondent changed his story to comport with the alleged results of the polygraph examinations of October 11 and 27,1989 that he was being untruthful concerning the matter set out above, the more credible evidence concerning the events of the night of September 29, 1989 which led up to the shooting of Miller is Respondent's testimony at the hearing which comports in almost every detail with the Offense Incident Report which was completed and filed by Respondent shortly after the incident occurred. Respondent's reason for changing his story concerning Miller's action was that he was aggravated by the investigation, and thought that by giving the "changed answers" to the same questions on another polygraph examination would indicate that he was also being untruthful with the "changed answers" and hopefully, this would clear up those areas on the two previous polygraph examinations. There was sufficient substantial competent evidence to establish that Respondent was in fear in his life, on both occasions, when he shot at Miller on September 29, 1989, and that Respondent's reasons for changing certain statements about the incident was done neither with the intent to mislead the investigation nor to accomplish some unlawful purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Administrative Complaint, as amended at the hearing, filed against the Respondent be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The facts as set forth in the Stipulation above are incorporated within the Findings of Fact in this hearing. The applicant is now employed by Central Security Patrol. His supervisor in his employment as an unarmed guard has known Croft for 15 months. His supervisor's primary association and knowledge of Croft is job-related. Croft's supervisor considers Croft dependable, a good worker, and well liked by those who come in contact with him. Croft has had no problems with absenteeism from his job. Croft's further advancement within the company with which he is now employed is dependent upon acquisition of a Class G, armed guard license. Croft's reputation in the community was testified to by two of his neighbors who had known Croft for three to four years. Croft's reputation in the neighborhood is good. The neighbors, who observed Croft daily, testified to Croft's habits. Croft does not drink and lives quietly with his wife of four years. Croft works in his yard and at his job. Croft testified in his own behalf. Croft had a series of arrests and convictions arising out of his heavy drinking between 1963 and 1969. Croft was then arrested for driving under the influence and a moving traffic violation in May of 1975. In October of 1975, he was arrested for homicide, assault to commit murder, and discharge of a firearm. These charges were dropped. Croft stated that these charges were an outgrowth of his heavy drinking. Croft was married approximately four years ago and has not drunk alcoholic beverages for the past two years. Although Croft does not admit to alcoholism, he recognizes that his drinking was the cause of his problems and has ceased drinking. Concerning the gap in his arrest record between 1969 and 1975, Croft stated that he had drunk heavily during that period but had not been arrested. Croft's supervisor testified concerning the company's policy concerning issuance and control of firearms. The company which employs Croft owns and controls all employee weapons to the extent that the company purchases any private weapon owned by an employee which the employee wishes to use on the job. Only weapons originally owned by an employee may be retained in the employee's possession and removed off a security post. All other weapons owned by the company must be retained on a security post and transferred from one guard shift to the next.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the applicant, James Robert Croft, be issued a Class G, armed guard license. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: W. J. Gladwin, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James R. Croft 3545 Marlboro Avenue Jacksonville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent was born on February 4, 1957. He attended the Orlando Police Academy from March to June, 1980. Academically, he ranked eighth among the 47 recruits. He received the Mayor's Award for overall performance. In 1980, after graduating from the Orlando Police Academy, Respondent joined the Orlando Police Department. He completed his field training without incident and then was assigned to patrol duty. After about six months, Respondent, who was already serving as an instructor at the Orlando Police Department, was requested to be an assistant squad leader. An assistant squad leader performs all of the duties of the sergeant when the sergeant is absent. After about six months as an assistant squad leader, a major asked Respondent to become field training coordinator in the training section. After a year on this assignment, Respondent was promoted to sergeant and then spent another year on the road as a patrol sergeant. At this point, the major in charge of the field operations bureau of the patrol division, asked Respondent to become his administrative assistant. Respondent served two majors a total of about a year in this position. Respondent was on track toward entering management in the police department. After a year as an administrative assistant, Respondent was assigned to the criminal investigation division where he was in charge of the youth section. This was Respondent's position when he left the Orlando Police Department in the middle of 1986. In early 1985, Respondent met Donna Jackson while he was working off- duty. At this time, Respondent and his wife had been separated since late 1983 or early 1984. After the initial meeting and before any additional encounters, Respondent ran a background check on Ms. Jackson and found that she had been on probation about three years earlier for possession of a controlled substance. When Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that her background precluded any relationship due to his employment, she began crying and told him that she had been trying to put her life back in order. That evening, Respondent and Ms. Jackson commenced an intimate relationship. A few months into the relationship, Respondent learned that Ms. Jackson had been misleading him and was not trying to get her life back together. By August or September, 1985, the relationship began to deteriorate. Ms. Jackson began to consume alcohol heavily and having male visitors late at night. Respondent and Ms. Jackson began to fight. The domestic disputes occasionally involved some physical contact, but the contact was insubstantial. One evening, Respondent and Ms. Jackson had gone to a nightclub in Seminole County where they met a woman who invited them to a party at her residence. As they began to leave the parking lot of the nightclub, Ms. Jackson and the woman lit up a marijuana cigarette. Respondent immediately objected and insisted that he and Ms. Jackson go home, which they did. However, Respondent, who lacked the power to arrest Ms. Jackson and the woman because it was a misdemeanor outside of his jurisdiction, did not report the incident to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. At this point, Respondent learned from Ms. Jackson's mother the severity of her past drug problems. Respondent broke off the relationship at this point, expressing a desire to remain friends only. By April, 1986, Respondent had not seen Ms. Jackson for a couple of months. Ms. Jackson's mother telephoned and told him that Ms. Jackson had taken a turn for the worse and had lost her apartment. Ms. Jackson, who was abusing drugs heavily again, and her young daughter were living on the streets. Ms. Jackson's mother begged Respondent to help them. At about this time, Ms. Jackson had been arrested in Orlando for driving without a license. She had asked that one of the officers contact Respondent. When he spoke with Ms. Jackson, Respondent assured her that he would try to help her as a friend. Released before her court appearance, Ms. Jackson failed to appear in court. Having spoken with Ms. Jackson's probation officer about the possibility of admitting her into a rehabilitation program, Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that he would arrest her if he saw her driving because he knew she no longer had a license. Respondent and the probation officer thought that such an arrest might help them find a place for Ms. Jackson in a program. Respondent later saw her driving an automobile, arrested her, and contacted her probation officer about placing her in a program. However, she bonded out, of jail before they could do anything. Shortly after Ms. Jackson was released from jail, the probation officer caused an arrest warrant to be issued for Ms. Jackson for violation of the conditions of her probation. Again, the intent was to use this means to find her a place in a rehabilitation program. The morning that the violation-of probation warrant was issued, which was on or about September 23, 1986, Ms. Jackson's mother telephoned Respondent and told him that she knew where Ms. Jackson was. At that point, the probation officer informed Respondent that a facility had a bed available for Ms. Jackson if they could detain her involuntarily. Respondent immediately found Ms. Jackson and arrested her. A minor scuffle occurred between Respondent and a female companion of Ms. Jackson, and Respondent soiled and tore his suit. Respondent then began to transport Ms. Jackson in an unmarked vehicle to the booking department. After learning that they did not yet have the violation-of-probation warrant, Respondent pulled the car over and he and Ms. Jackson began to talk about why she had refused his help. Ms. Jackson then asked if Respondent would take her to see her mother before taking her to jail. Although they were near the booking department at the time and Ms. Jackson's parents lived 5-10 miles away, Respondent agreed to take her to see her mother before going to jail. While at the parents' home, Respondent, who is a careful dresser, noticed for the first time the condition of his suit as a result of the earlier scuffle. When they left the parents' home, Respondent decided to drop by his apartment in order to change his clothes before taking her in for booking. While at the apartment with Ms. Jackson, Respondent was unable to resist her entreaties to have sex with her one more time. Following sex, he took her to the booking department where she was processed on the violation-of- probation warrant. Upset that Respondent had arrested her and refused to let her go, on October 9, 1986, Ms. Jackson falsely accused Respondent of raping her when they had intercourse in his apartment on the day of her arrest. Respondent cooperated fully with the internal investigation and candidly answered all questions asked of him. He resigned from the Orlando Police Department at that time. Shortly after this incident, Respondent began to see his estranged wife again and, about two or three months later, they were reconciled. Until Ms. Jackson's false charges were resolved, Respondent worked as a salesman for Cablevision of Central Florida where he quickly emerged as one of the top three sales representatives. He also underwent extensive counselling with his pastor at church and other ministers. Several of the ministers testified at the hearing as to Respondent's good moral character, notwithstanding the obvious mistakes he made with respect to his relationship with Ms. Jackson. The state attorney declined to prosecute the case and the charges were dropped in June, 1987 Respondent immediately began applying to other police departments for a position as an officer. After several unsuccessful attempts, he finally was offered an entry-level officer's position with the Titusville Police Department. Although he had made about $37,000 during the past ten months as a salesman, he agreed to an $18,000 annual salary with the Titusville Police Department because of his love for law enforcement. Respondent is currently assigned to the tactical unit of the Titusville Police Department. His record has been exemplary. His performance under pressure, including on one occasion the fatal shooting of another officer, has been outstanding, and he has assumed a significant leadership role among the officers in the department. Numerous law enforcement officers testified on behalf of Respondent. Several testified that domestic disputes of the type in this case are not uncommon among law enforcement officers. Several testified that they would have done nothing under the circumstances had they observed Ms. Jackson and the other woman smoking marijuana outside of their jurisdiction. The testimony of three witness has been given considerable weight. Ms. Jackson's parents testified to her manipulativeness and, more importantly, the positive effect that Respondent had had upon her. Regrettably, they testified that she has not recovered from her battle with drug abuse and they were, at the time of the hearing, unaware of where she was living. Titusville Police Chief Charles Ball, who has been in law enforcement for over 20 years and chief of the department for 10 years, testified that the revocation of Respondent's certificate would represent a loss to the Titusville Police Department and law enforcement generally. Chief Ball testified that Respondent is of good moral character, even considering the poor judgment described above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Cohen, Esq. Pilacek & Cohen 1516 East Hillcrest Street Suite 204 Orlando, FL 32803 Joseph S. White, Esq. Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Daryl McLaughlin, Executive Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esq. General Counsel Criminal Justice standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the commission of an act of violence or the use of force on any person except in the lawful protection of oneself or another from physical harm.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds the following licenses: Class "D" Security Officer, Class "G" Statewide Firearm License, and Class "MB" Security Agency Manager. He has held the Class "D" and "G" licenses since September 22, 1992. He has held the Class "MB" license since January 22, 1993. By an Emergency Order of Suspension entered March 4, 1993, Petitioner suspended all three licenses held by Respondent. The suspension was based on Respondent's arrest on February 26, 1993, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Kimo Little, such act not being in defense of self or another. Respondent is employed by Castlewatch Security Company, where he has worked for one year and three months. For about one and one-half years, Respondent has been negotiating with the current owner of the company for the purchase of the company. Respondent has an associates degree in business from Penn State University. He has been employed in the security business, in and outside Florida, for a little more than six years. In the course of performing his security guard work, Respondent regularly uses a Citizens Band radio in order to maintain contact with security guards in the field, when Respondent is not in the field, or with the main office, when Respondent is in the field. Security guards with other companies also use the CB radio in this fashion, and frequently conversations among security guards take place during the evening hours. On the evening of February 25, 1993, Respondent was on- duty, alone, at Roger Dean Chevrolet. At about 10:30 pm, he witnessed a bad car accident, which left him in an agitated state due to the seriousness of the injuries that he observed. About one-half to one hour later, Respondent was on the CB radio when he overheard Kimo Little and another man engaged in a hostile conversation involving swearing and cutting off the conversations of other security guards. Respondent intervened, advising the main perpetrator, Mr. Little, to discontinue the conversation, or at least the swearing. The conversation between Respondent and Mr. Little became heated. Eventually, they agreed to settle their differences 1/ by fisticuffs at the parking lot of a closed McDonald's. Respondent had not previously arranged fights by way of CB radio. However, on at least two or three occasions, Mr. Little has detected differences of opinion between him and other users of the CB radio and determined the differences to be of such gravity as to require their settlement through combat. While still on the radio with Respondent, Mr. Little stated that he intended to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Mr. Little also explicitly informed Respondent that the fight was to be a "fair fight" without guns. Mr. Little beckoned a friend, Paul LeClair, to drive Mr. Little to the McDonald's for the fight. It is unclear why Respondent went to meet Mr. Little except to fight. At the time, Mr. Little neither knew Respondent's identity or where he worked. When Respondent was relieved at about 11:30 pm, he drove his utility vehicle over to the dimly lit, empty parking lot of the McDonald's. After a quick tour of the parking area, Respondent saw no one and was driving toward the exit when Messrs. Little and LeClair appeared in the latter's truck. In a clearly irritated tone, Mr. Little advised Respondent by radio, "I see you. I'm going to hunt you down like a dog." He then jumped out of Mr. LeClair's vehicle and ran toward Respondent's vehicle, waving his arms in an angry, beckoning fashion. Although Respondent could have left the parking lot, he instead turned his vehicle around and drove toward Mr. Little. As he approached Mr. Little, he got a good view of his adversary. Mr. Little is six feet tall and a menacing 270 pounds. Somewhat smaller than Mr. Little, Respondent quickly surveyed Mr. Little's superior size and enthusiasm, as evidenced by his shouting to the approaching Respondent: "I'm going to tear your fucking head off." Respondent also noted Mr. Little's potential ally, Mr. LeClair, who was standing beside his truck. Respondent quickly decided not to fight Mr. Little. Instead, Respondent drew the 9 mm handgun that he keeps on hand for security work, aimed it at Mr. Little, and warned him, "Come any closer and I'll blow you away." He added for emphasis, "Back off, motherfucker." The distance between the two gentlemen was about three meters. Undaunted by the weapon, Mr. Little implored Respondent, "Just get out of the truck and put the gun away. I'll whip your ass like a man." However, Respondent chose instead to leave the parking area. As he drove away, he called the police and informed them of the situation. Shortly thereafter, the Cape Coral police arrested Respondent, after determining that he had drawn his weapon but had not seen a weapon on Mr. Little. There is no evidence that any criminal case has been initiated or prosecuted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order dismissing the Emergency Order of Suspension. ENTERED on April 20, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 20, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marcel C. Johnson, is a certified law enforcement officer having been issued certification number 0235217 on March 2, 1982 by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. Until 1985 or early 1986, he was employed as a police office by the City of Miami. On or about April 15, 1986 Johnson pled nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance - cocaine, a third degree felony. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Johnson was placed on three years' probation and required to perform 150 hours of community service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's law enforcement certification number 0235217 be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Marcel C. Johnson 2105 Northwest 56th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Mr. Rod Caswell, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Fuller Warren Crews was employed until 1959 as a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. In 1959, he was permitted to resign rather than face disciplinary charges. In 1959, Crews pled guilty in Jacksonville to damage to telephone equipment, a misdemeanor. Crews was sentenced to six months in the county jail. In 1960, Crews was found guilty of possession of tools used in committing crimes and pled guilty to simple larceny in Tifton County, Georgia. Be was sentenced to three to five years in prison in Georgia. Crews was fully pardoned for the offense of possession of tools used in committing crimes on October 6, 1975. Approximately eight to ten years ago, Crews became active within tie Nassau County Sheriff's posse helping to reorganize those police auxiliary groups. He was very dedicated and did a fine job, eventually becoming Captain of the posse. Crews applied for a position as Deputy Sheriff in Nassau County in 1976. He was interviewed by the Sheriff, who he advised of his criminal record. The Sheriff desired to hire Crews and contacted the Police Standards and Training Commission. In January, 1976, the Sheriff's Department provided the PSTC with various data on Crews. This data constituted the application for certification by the Commission, which does not have an application form. This application led to the processing of Crews' certification over the next two years. The procedures of the Department delegated to individual law enforcement agencies the task of conducting background investigations. Basic background data on Crews' convictions and former employment was provided the PSTC prior to Crews' certification on February 3, 1978 (Transcript, pages 178 and 179). In the course of processing his application, Crews appeared informally before the Commission concerning his certification on August 20, 1976. At that time questions were asked of Crews by the Commission regarding his dismissal from the Jacksonville Police Department. Crews responded that he had been discharged because of charges involving unlawful damage to private property (Transcript, pages 129, 165 and 166). There was no indication that Crews failed in any way to disclose his past record either in his application or in his statements to the Commission. Crews was denied certification because of the Commission's interpretation of Chapter 112.011, Florida Statutes, to Crews' pardon and the Federal Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 922(h) (Exhibit #2). Crews' fingerprints were taken by the Sheriff's Department and forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) but not to the PSTC. The FDLE forwarded Crews' fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI sent one fingerprint card and Crews' RAP sheet back to the FDLE but not to the PSTC, and the FDLE sent the fingerprint card and RAP sheet to the Sheriff's Department. Under the PSTC's standard procedures, the Sheriff's Department sent this data to the Commission when Crews was hired, the day after his certification. The Sheriff's Department had knowledge of Crews criminal convictions and dismissal from the Jacksonville Police Department from the RAP sheet and Crews' statements to the Sheriff. On February 3, 1978, the Commission certified Crews. There was a discussion of Crews' background by the Commission, particularly his pardon, after which Crews was certified. His certification resulted from the Commission's interpretation of the law (Transcript, pages 166, 167, 182, 184, 105 and 186. See also attached minutes, Exhibit #4 and letter from Smith to Long). According to a member of the Commission at that time, Crews' certification was not a clerical error but resulted from the Commission staff's failure to follow up on data which it possessed (Transcript, pages 189 and 190) Many co-workers, the Sheriff by whom Crews is employed, neighbors and others testified regarding Crews' reputation in the community and their personal assessments of Crews' character. He is considered to be truthful, trustworthy, honest and hardworking. He has worked as a deputy sheriff since 1978 and has a reputation as a fine professional law enforcement officer respected by his co- workers and associates, many of whom testified in his behalf.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Police Standards and Training Commission toe no action to revoke the certification of Fuller Warren Crews because it lacks authority to consider any grounds for revocation which preexisted its initial final action of certification, and because the record reflects that Fuller Warren Crews has maintained good moral character. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Corrigan, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Sheppard, Esquire 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 80-921 FULLER WARREN CREWS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Joseph M. Conover committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Conover is a licensed security officer. He holds Class D, DI, G, and MB licenses from the Department. His license numbers are D9817475, DI2000134, G2003451, and MB9900202. Mr. Conover's Class G license allows him to carry a firearm, subject to the provisions of Section 493.6115, Florida Statutes. Mr. Conover has been licensed by the Department since 1998, and he has been an armed security officer since 2000 or 2001. Mr. Conover is the president and chief operating officer of Nova, which has its principle office in Brevard County. Mr. Conover resides in Brevard County. Nova's principle office is located within his home. Mr. Conover has managerial and supervisory duties in his position as president and chief operating officer of Nova. The duties include scheduling armed security guards for clients, ensuring the guards' compliance with applicable regulations, soliciting new clients, and maintaining contact with clients and the guards that are on duty. At the time of the events giving rise to the Administrative Complaints, Nova provided armed security guard services for ten apartment complexes and residential communities in Orlando. Nova did not provide security services for any location in Brevard County. On April 29, 2006, while in route to an armed security post in Orlando, Mr. Conover stopped to render aid at a motor vehicle accident in Brevard County. He rendered emergency medical care2/ to one of the individuals involved in the accident, and he also directed traffic at the scene. He was wearing his security guard uniform and carrying his firearm in plain view at the time. On May 1, 2006, while in route to an armed security post in Orlando, Mr. Conover stopped at a Starbucks in Brevard County. He got out of his car and went into the store to purchase a cup of coffee. He was wearing his uniform and carrying his firearm in plain view at the time. Mr. Conover testified that he was "on duty" at the time of each incident because he was performing managerial and supervisory duties while in route to Orlando. He testified that immediately prior to the accident on April 29, 2006, he was fielding calls on his two-way radio from the armed security guards who were on duty in Orlando, and he can be seen talking on his radio or cell phone on the videotape of the May 1, 2006, incident. However, there is no credible evidence that Mr. Conover was providing any managerial or supervisory duties to the security guards during the time that he was rendering emergency medical care and directing traffic at the accident scene. The managerial and supervisory duties that Mr. Conover was performing at the time of the incidents did not require him to be armed. First, as Mr. Conover acknowledged, there is a difference between managerial and supervisory duties and armed security guard duties. A Class G license is not required in order to perform managerial and supervisory duties for armed security guards, particularly where such duties are being performed off-site. Second, Mr. Conover was nowhere near the sites that Nova was providing armed security services at the time of the incidents. He was approximately 40 miles, and at least 25 to 30 minutes, away from the sites. Criminal charges were brought against Mr. Conover for impersonating a police officer and carrying a weapon in plain view based upon his activities at the accident scene on April 29, 2006. The charges were nol prossed by the State. The Department began its investigation of Mr. Conover in May 2006 based upon information received from the Indialantic Police Department in Brevard County concerning the incidents described above. In July 2006, Mr. Conover's attorney sent a letter to the Department requesting the Department's "official interpretation of Florida Statutes § 493.6115 regarding carrying of weapons and firearms." The letter included the following summary of a conversation between Mr. Conover's attorney and Art Varnadore, who the letter represented to be the Chief of Regulation and Enforcement for the Department: ccording to Florida Statutes Chapter 493, a security officer can only carry a firearm while on duty at an armed post. A security agency manager can only carry a firearm while on duty at an armed post. A security agency manager or security officer traveling between armed posts may keep his firearm on him in the car. However, he cannot leave the vehicle with a firearm unless at an armed post. The Department did not respond to this letter or a follow-up letter sent by Mr. Conover's attorney in August 2006. The letters were sent after the Department began its investigation into the incidents giving rise to the Administrative Complaint. There is no evidence that Mr. Conover ever sought guidance from the Department prior to the incidents. Mr. Conover has been complying with the procedures quoted above since July 2006. The Department publishes a "Security Officer Handbook," as required by Section 493.6123(2), Florida Statutes, in order to provide guidance to licensees regarding "the legal authority, rights, and obligations of his or her specific license." A copy of the handbook is supposed to be provided to each licensee. The handbook includes the following provisions pertinent to this case: e. Class "D" Security Officers who also possess a Class "G" license may carry a firearm only when the duty assignment requires armed security and only while on the post of duty. Section 493.6115(3), F.S. Example: A Class "D" Security Officer who also has a Class "G" license and is normally assigned to an armed post is assigned, temporarily, to an unarmed post. He may not carry his firearm on the temporary assignment. Example: The same security officer, while serving on his usual armed post, may not wear his firearm when he leaves his assigned post for other than duty purposes, such as for lunch, or when traveling to or from home. During such non-duty periods, the firearm must be removed and secured. * * * g. While the licensee is on duty, his firearm must be carried in a holster and in plain view. It may only be carried concealed under those conditions addressed in VIII.c. Section 493.6115(3), F.S.[3/] The handbook does not include a specific example addressing the conduct of licensees responsible for managing and supervising armed security guards. The examples in the handbook focus on licensees with assigned "posts of duties." Mr. Conover did not rely on any of the guidance in the handbook; he testified that he did not recall ever receiving a copy of the handbook. Mr. Conover has no disciplinary history with the Department. There is no credible evidence that the Department investigated or prosecuted this case for an "improper purpose," as alleged by Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Conover guilty of carrying a firearm in violation of Section 493.6115(3), Florida Statutes, on April 29, 2006, and on May 1, 2006, as charged in Administrative Complaint No. CD2006-1316; and Imposes an administrative fine of $100 on Mr. Conover; Issues a formal reprimand to Mr. Conover. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2008.
